← Back to context

Comment by jamesrcole

6 years ago

I would like to know who the journalist is. Not so they can be threatened or put in danger. But so their reputation can take a hit. Part of the reason people do these things is because they can get away with it without any consequences.

14 comments

jamesrcole

Reply
fourcommas  6 years ago

The lead editors are responsible for maintaining ethical standards, and they represent the NYT. Adjust your impression of the NYT reputation based on this story. Also see the other comment on this article about Naomi Wu being doxxed, where the risk is deadly living under a tyrannical regime: the NYT hired the journalist responsible, who doesn't believe any mistake was made there.

  • jamesrcole  6 years ago

    It's just assumed in your comment that this should only be about the media outlet, and that we should ignore the journalist involved.

    The problem with people trying to shut down others primarily comes from individuals. Often that's individuals on social media. In this case it's a journalist. These individuals can destroy other people's lives, yet they essentially face zero consequences for doing so.

    And each time they succeed, like in this case, they embolden others to do it.

    • afarrell  6 years ago

      For twitter, you have a point. For something being paid for and published by an organization, this is driven by the organizational culture which pays them to do so.

radomysisky  6 years ago

https://twitter.com/CadeMetz

lazyasciiart  6 years ago

People want to know who SSC is for the same reason.

  • solveit  6 years ago

    So Scott the psychiatrist's reputation can take a hit? If Scott Alexander writes shitty stuff, Scott Alexander's name will take a hit. And there's nothing wrong with that, because his future work will also be published under that name. But what's the rationale for nuking Scott the psychiatrist? (who will also be nuked even if his patients see nothing wrong with his blog. Patient-psychiatrist interactions are supposed to be tightly controlled)